Why insist upon more than 90 minutes of Davis’s Brexit waffle when 30 seconds will do?

They hadn’t even started talking about Brexit and already they were at each other’s throats. “My department is under high time-pressure,” said David Davis, as he took his seat before the Brexit select committee. “I’ve got to limit this to an hour and a half. My next meeting is very, very important to me.”

Hilary Benn, the committee’s chairman, peered at the Brexit Secretary with a look of owlish disdain. Mr Davis’s clear implication – that, unlike his next meeting, this hearing was not “very, very important” – did not appear to impress Mr Benn.

“I don’t think that will really do,” he snapped. “Part of your responsibilities is to appear in front of this committee. We’ve all got other meetings. I don’t think an hour and a half is satisfactory.” And so it went on. Mr Davis retorted to Mr Benn’s retort. Mr Benn retorted to Mr Davis’s retort to his retort. Between them, they managed to use up the first three minutes of the 90 just in arguing about whether 90 was long enough.

By the end of the argument, of course, it was irrelevant, because they no longer had 90 minutes. They had about 87.

Personally, I couldn’t see why Mr Benn was kicking up such a fuss. After all, Mr Davis’s answers at these hearings were invariably so waffly and unenlightening, you’d think that, if anything, Mr Benn would be demanding less time with him, not more. The argument should really have gone as follows….

Davis: “I’ve got to limit this to an hour and a half.”

Benn: “I’m sorry, Secretary of State, but that really isn’t satisfactory. We’ll listen to you for 20 minutes, maximum.”

Davis: “Come on, Mr Chairman. That’s completely unreasonable. Think of all the important issues you could hear my views on. An hour, at least.”

Benn: “Twenty-five minutes, and not a second more.”

Davis: “Forty-five.”

Benn: “Right. Compromise. We’ll give you half an hour, but while you’re talking, the committee is allowed to

‘Part of your responsibilities is to appear in front of this committee. We’ve all got other meetings’

answer correspondence, conduct private conversations and play Candy Crush Saga on their ipads. I personally shall be reading a book about otters. I’m just in the middle of an extremely interesting chapter on their prevalence in Japanese folklore. Deal?”

Eventually the questioning began. Having put the tiff with Mr Benn behind him, Mr Davis reverted to his usual breeziness, waving his glasses around and occasionally chuckling to himself as if he’d just been reminded of an amusing story that was much too rude to share with the room. The

‘We’re not winging it – merely having to cope with changes as we go along’

committee asked questions on numerous topics, including the Irish border issue, but gleaned little that was new.

Jonathan Djanogly (Con, Huntingdon) wondered whether ministers were “winging it”. Mr Davis assured him that they weren’t; they were merely “having to cope with changes as we go along”.

At 10.50am he hurried off to his important meeting. “I trust,” said Mr Benn, “that on the next occasion there will be adequate time.”

About 30 seconds should do it.